KANDASWAMI MUDALIAR Vs. PROVINCE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant of a portion of the premises No. 10, Francis Joseph Street, George Town, Madras, of which the second respondent is the landlord and to which the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1945 (hereinafter called "the Control Order") applied. Pursuant to the provisions of the Control Order, on 16th July, 1946 the second respondent applied for eviction of the petitioner to the Rent Controller who made an order on 15 August, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. The petitioner appealed to the Collector of Madras against this order; the hearing before the Collector was concluded on September 30, when judgment was reserved ; on19 October, judgment was delivered upholding the order of the Controller and dismissing the appeal. On 12 November, the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Provincial Government, under the provisions of Clause 8(2-A) of the Control Order. On 16 January, 1947, by Memorandum No. 87080-N/46-2, Development Department, the Government of Madras rejected the revision petition on the ground that no action could be taken by the Government as no revision petition lay to it after 30 September, 1946 in respect of orders passed by Rent Controllers or Collectors.

(2.) The Control Order was made in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules, which rules were made by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 2(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1939. Prior to the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal to the Collector of Madras and prior to the presentation of his revision petition to the Provincial Government, the Defence of India Act expired on 30 September, 1946, consequently the Defence of India rules and the Control Order also expired. On 1 October, 1946, the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, came into force ; it affords protection to tenants and prevents unreasonable eviction of them and replaces, with some changes, the expired Control Order. But the Act does not contain a provision similar to Clause 8(2-A) of the Control Order. The rejection by the. Provincial Government of the petitioner's revision petition was because the Control Order had previously expired. Clause 8(2-A) of the Control Order provides that: The Provincial Government may call for the record of any case which has been decided by the Controller or Collector and make such order in the case as they think fit. Any such order shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court of law. In C.M.P. No. 1167 of 1947 the petitioner prays that a writ of certiorari be issued (a) calling for the records and papers in respect of the Development Department Memo No. 87080-N/46-2, dated 16 January, 1947 and (b) quashing the order of rejection. In C.M.P. No. 1168 of 1947 the petitioner prays that this Court may direct the appeal (? petition) be restored to the file and be dealt with according to law and upon its merits. In C. M. P. No 1169 of 1947 stay of the eviction order is sought.

(3.) In the original applications orders were sought against the Secretary to Government, Development Department, but, since, under Clause 8(2-A) the Provincial Government itself is the reviewing authority and not a Secretary to Government or any other official, rules nisi were directed to issue to the Provincial Government, as the Province of Madras, the first respondent in C.M.P. Nos. 1167 and 1168 of 1947. An interim stay was directed in C.M.P. No. 1169 of 1947 pending the hearing of the other two applications. Notice was also directed to the landlord, the second respondent. Both respondents have appeared to show cause against the rules being made absolute.